• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican Karen Handel Wins Georgia House Special Election

Harry Guerrilla said:
I grew up around the area, generally know the people.
They're soft republicans not hard ones, in my opinion.

A blue dog D could flip it.
Click to expand...

Are the Blue Dogs still around? Is Joe Manchin considered a Blue Dog?
 
Cardinal said:
Republicans think she's a "rude, interrupting bitch," but have given Trump a pass for bragging about sexual assault, stealing nearly a quarter billion dollars from regular Americans in his university scam, lying 669 times since January alone, and moving to remove health care for over 23 million people. So you'll pardon me if I don't consider Republicans to be fabulous judges of character.
Click to expand...

I don't care for DJT either; he's everything you described, but pointing a finger at him doesn't make her less repulsive. The hearing could have been billed: "Partisan Harridan vs Thoughtless Gnome."
 
Gill said:
The biggest and latest instance of more money not working was last November. Clinton spent almost twice as much as Trump did.
Click to expand...

Being already well-known (famous, really), and with his over-the-top personality, Trump used the free advertising the media gave him masterfully.
 
X Factor said:
After another recent special election that also went to the Repub candidate, it was actually argued that a close race within a certain percentage point margin was really a Dem victory. If losing elections is indeed the new definition of "winning" for Dems then I wish them many more such victories. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Why not? It's either that or we won the popular vote.

Except in the specials they didn't. So it's on to close counting.
 
Cigar said:
None of this shows up in my personal bank account, how about you?

I don't care if they chose to spend $1 or $Billions of Dollars of Campaign Donations ... my Vote is Free and doesn't cost me a penny. I just like seeing More and More Democrats with a wider diverse base Voting. Sooner or later, Republicans will run out of ways to Gerrymander Demographics and Suppress Voting.

Tick-Tock :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Go ahead, hold your breath...
 
radcen said:
Being already well-known (famous, really), and with his over-the-top personality, Trump used the free advertising the media gave him masterfully.
Click to expand...

The media aided and abetted a Trump presidency. CBS exec is quoted, "Trump is bad for the country but, good for CBS."

MSM preferred to show an empty Trump podium than a Bernie Sanders speaking to the largest crowds of anyone in the primaries.

Bernie had larger crowds than Trump and they preferred to show an empty Trump podium and then Trump hawking steaks. It was exceedingly insipid.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't care for DJT either; he's everything you described, but pointing a finger at him doesn't make her less repulsive. The hearing could have been billed: "Partisan Harridan vs Thoughtless Gnome."
Click to expand...

The Republicans who find Trump repulsive but voted for him anyway either did so because they hated Clinton on a personal level or because Trump promised to nominate everybody on the list of judicial nominees the GOP placed in his hands. The opinions these groups have of Kamala Harris aren't relevant to me either.

For one reason or another, Republicans made their deal with the devil, and in the long term that will be their problem. But the central nature of a bargain with the devil is that you never quite get what you think you were bargaining for.
 
nota bene said:
Every time I read the name, I think of the Handel, George Friedrick Handel.

Click to expand...


Detouring slightly from the thread topic, I connected w/ that video. My dear Handel friend has an only child. Her parents partnered with other parents to begin a Waldorf school. The child's family moved to the Berkshires to continue her Waldorf education. She graduated high school last year and now attends SCAD, a design school in Savannah GA. She learned how to play cello. That video reminded me of the cello youtubes posted by her proud Papa.
 
Cardinal said:
The Republicans who find Trump repulsive but voted for him anyway either did so because they hated Clinton on a personal level or because Trump promised to nominate everybody on the list of judicial nominees the GOP placed in his hands. The opinions these groups have of Kamala Harris aren't relevant to me either.
Click to expand...

So absolutely none of them could have had any policy preferences Trump was more in line with than Hillary? It could only be about judges and personal hate?
 
Cardinal said:
The Republicans who find Trump repulsive but voted for him anyway either did so because they hated Clinton on a personal level or because Trump promised to nominate everybody on the list of judicial nominees the GOP placed in his hands. The opinions these groups have of Kamala Harris aren't relevant to me either.

For one reason or another, Republicans made their deal with the devil, and in the long term that will be their problem. But the central nature of a bargain with the devil is that you never quite get what you think you were bargaining for.
Click to expand...

And again, I don't care how much you dislike DJT or how unworthy he is. I didn't vote for him either. Until Dems stop defining themselves primarily by their "anti-Trumpness" they will continue to lose by putting forward unappealing spokespersons like Harris.
 
Winston said:
The media aided and abetted a Trump presidency. CBS exec is quoted, "Trump is bad for the country but, good for CBS."

MSM preferred to show an empty Trump podium than a Bernie Sanders speaking to the largest crowds of anyone in the primaries.

Bernie had larger crowds than Trump and they preferred to show an empty Trump podium and then Trump hawking steaks. It was exceedingly insipid.
Click to expand...

It was insipid. But, refer back to your CBS exec quote. That's it, bottom line.

And I take that back to us, the people. All CBS and the others are doing is giving us what we really want, regardless what we say we want. If we wanted Sanders, we'd get Sanders. Back to the bottom line, they make money by giving us what we want.

Sanders may have energized large crowds, but those large crowds were still small when compared to tv audiences and the nation as a whole.
 
Jack Hays said:
And again, I don't care how much you dislike DJT or how unworthy he is. I didn't vote for him either. Until Dems stop defining themselves primarily by their "anti-Trumpness" they will continue to lose by putting forward unappealing spokespersons like Harris.
Click to expand...

I don't actually know if you're a 2a guy, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that you are. If my party rolls into power and does the one thing that gun people have always feared would happen by literally going door to door and taking away people's guns, would you define your opposition to my party, at least in part, by the thing I'm taking away from you?
 
Fenton said:
Ossoff raised 22 million and still couldnt win and Democrats are 0-4 now since Trump was elected.

They only have themselve to blame for this.
Their strategy for winning has been a 5 month long temper tantrum, 24/7/365 conspiracy nuttery and insulting every voter who doesnt support their candidates
Click to expand...


Democrats never really had a chance for this seat. It is a gerrymandered seat +9 Republican district. The fact that it was even as close as it was is somewhat surprising. I don't think either side can read much into this. Republicans will point out that they are 4-0 in safe Republican special election districts. Democrats will point out that each candidate won by substantially smaller margins than the previous candidate won. You can spin it however you like.
 
Cardinal said:
I don't actually know if you're a 2a guy, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that you are. If my party rolls into power and does the one thing that gun people have always feared would happen by literally going door to door and taking away people's guns, would you define your opposition to my party, at least in part, by the thing I'm taking away from you?
Click to expand...

I don't own a firearm although I've carried them professionally. A party "rolling into power" would have no effect on the 2A; that's why we have a Constitution. I think your attempted analogy is inappropriate and an example of anti-Trump hysteria.
 
Gill said:
Looks like they already are, and have been for quite awhile:

Ossoff: $22.2 million

Handel: $3.5 million

Now, do you want to discuss the Dem expenditures v Rep expenditures in the presidential race last year??
Click to expand...
That doesn't include outside money spending on Handel's behalf.

GA 6 Capture.JPG
Source: New York Times

This was a solid red seat, as the South Carolina seat was. The fact that both were close is an indication for 2018, where there are much more in-play districts.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
It was insipid. But, refer back to your CBS exec quote. That's it, bottom line.

And I take that back to us, the people. All CBS and the others are doing is giving us what we really want, regardless what we say we want. If we wanted Sanders, we'd get Sanders. Back to the bottom line, they make money by giving us what we want.

Sanders may have energized large crowds, but those large crowds were still small when compared to tv audiences and the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...

But had the wider media broadcast him doing his thing, instead of empty Trump podia, then he might have had more impact.
We've seen it here with Corbyn. A two-headed fire-breathing communist monster in the media came across as mild-mannered and reasonable, with sensible policies when he actually appeared.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't own a firearm although I've carried them professionally. A party "rolling into power" would have no effect on the 2A; that's why we have a Constitution. I think your attempted analogy is inappropriate and an example of anti-Trump hysteria.
Click to expand...

Ah, you doth protest too much. The speed with which you suddenly became so evasive, even attempting to shift the burden onto me with your ad homs, is all I need to know. It tells me you know perfectly well that if my party swept into power and took away something important to you, you would in part define your opposition by the thing that's being taken from you, and who's taking it away.
 
Lol at all the conservatives insisting how bad it is that Ossoff spent money in this election. How ironic.
 
Cardinal said:
Ah, you doth protest too much. The speed with which you suddenly became so evasive, even attempting to shift the burden onto me with your ad homs, is all I need to know. It tells me you know perfectly well that if my party swept into power and took away something important to you, you would in part define your opposition by the thing that's being taken from you, and who's taking it away.
Click to expand...

There's no ad hom or evasion. There's a difference between issue-based opposition and hysterical opposition to a person. My point was and remains that as long as Dems define themselves primarily as the anti-Trump party and not a party with its own vision, they will lose.
 
Serenity said:
Genuine question here from a foreigner who would like some feedback to understand the significance of this and what difference it may make.
Click to expand...

Genuine answer from someone that's not been heavily involved in either side of this craziness.

Special elections like these are unique in that they can occur in the post-election fervor that is uncommon in many elections. Typically, your election season is a nice static predictable march, and there's an ebb and flow of news and public attitude and mentality towards elections. These impromptu elections, be it here or for example the Scott Brown election, happen within a very different set of circumstances and so are typically viewed in unique ways.

Due to the fact they happen outside of the normal election cycle, special interest groups that would potentially not give the election much attention may be more apt to turn their focus. It's a "big fish - small pond / small fish - big pond" type of thing. So at times you'll see far more money dumped into these special elections then you would a similar election during a major voting cycle. Additionally, since they are spun up so fast and are not part of the normal cycle, they are typically more directly connected to the major politik of the day. This is why these type of elections are often portrayed by either side as a potential "referendum on [x]"; because [x] is the hot button thing occurring right at the time this special election spins up. Back in 2010, it was the ACA; here, it was the election and subsequent actions of Donald Trump.

As is the case with a lot of things in politics, it's not always about the tangible benefits or changes that something will have but the image, the perception, the messaging.

For Democrats, this was a chance to sound a bell that the 2016 election was a fluke that has shown to be disastrous and that "reason and common sense" as they would deem it is taking hold again, with Trump being rejected as a toxic figure. If the election went their way, it could be hailed as a sign of Trump's agenda already being rejected even in a very red area. Additionally, it would act as a point of political leverage that could be used to attempt to convince/coerce moderates, or even not-so-moderate Republicans who are wary of Trump, to more actively oppose him or less actively oppose opposition to him.

For Republicans, specifically Trump backing ones, this was a chance to show that despite the media attention and the desire to "get" Trump in their eyes, the reality as they see it is that he and his agenda still appeal to voters in some fashion. It would serve as a message to those moderate, or Trump hesitant, Republicans that they should get on board and stop worrying about the political consequences of backing Trump. Due to the amount of focus and attention the Democrats were putting on the race, it allowed the chance with a Republican win for Trump supporters to just further dig into their belief and their messaging that the presentation and impression put forward via the media and other such venues regarding the countries outlook on Trump/his agenda is a fraudulent one.

There was no truly tangible benefit to be had here, but there was the potential for political leverage and messaging. The benefit was far greater for the Democrats in that regard than Republicans, as the Democrats had more to "gain" from a win in that department where as the Republicans would simply be trying to reaffirm the status-quo. This fact is made all the more evident when you look at the funding for the race, as you can see the far greater prioritization put on it by Democrats than Republicans. Had the Democratic candidate won, the impact could've been significant as it relates to the potential messaging and tactics the Democratic Party would use going forward on the heels of such a win. With the Republican victory, however, nothing significant will likely change other then perhaps a few Republicans in congress that were on the fence regarding how staunchly to support Trump/oppose the opposition may feel a bit safer upping that level of support. That, and general chest thumping of Trump supporters over this being a perceived victory against the "narrative" they've been declaring as fraudulent.

Well, and to be fair, a bit of chest pounding from some objective political observers that have been annoyed with overly zealous and egotistically confident prognosticators in general during these current electoral times that have turned traditional political science on top of it's head and made anyone with any honest observational skills realize that we need to take a step back and re-examine how exactly we're measuring and theorizing matters as it relates to politics, voting, and support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom